Daryl Tice v. Shamrock GMS Corporation
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 97-CA-00557-SCT
DARYL TICE
v.
SHAMROCK GMS CORPORATION d/b/a UTLEY REALTY SERVICE
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
04/14/97
HON. ANTHONY THOMAS FARESE
MARSHALL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
JAMES KIZER JONES
WILLIAM G. KEMP
CIVIL - CONTRACT
MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED - 4/22/1999
1/28/1999
4/29/99
EN BANC.
BANKS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This Court issued a per curiam affirmance of the chancellor's decision in this case on January 14, 1999.
Darryl Tice filed his motion to reconsider the Court's ruling, specifically on the issue of damages awarded to
Shamrock GMS Corporation, d/b/a/ Utley Realty Service ("Utley"). We conclude, however, that there was
no error in the chancellor's findings, and deny Tice's motion to reconsider.
¶2. Tice asserts it was undisputed that the buyer, Tommy Davis, did not become aware of the fact that
Tice's property was for sale during the initial term of exclusive listing agreement between Tice and Utley.
Tice further argues that the realtor was not entitled to damages because no breach of the contract occurred.
He alleges that his conversation with vendor Larry Churchill to solicit Churchill's help in selling the property
took place at the end of the contract term and did not constitute a breach of the agreement.
¶3. Contrary to Tice's argument, there does appear to be a disputed issue of fact in this case as to whether
the buyer was contacted during the term of the listing agreement. The record reflects conflicting statements
regarding when Davis was contacted. The chancellor, we must assume, found the testimony of Stephen
Utley, vice president of Utley Realty, to be more credible. "A chancellor sits as a fact-finder and in resolving
factual disputes, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses." Murphy v. Murphy, 631 So. 2d 812, 815
(Miss. 1994). The chancellor's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless there is manifest error. Bell v.
Parker, 563 So. 2d 594, 596-97 (Miss. 1990). Therefore, Tice's motion to reconsider is denied.
¶4. MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., McRAE, SMITH, MILLS AND
WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. COBB, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
